PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Shivhare, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Shiva Kant Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri V.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 and learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no.1 and perused the record.
(2.) The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.09.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Hamirpur, passed in Special Case 84 of 2012 (Merazuddin v. Arvind and others) under Sections 394, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Rath, District-Hamirpur.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special (D.A.A.), Hamirpur, has wrongly analysed the evidence available on record under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and arrived at an erroneous conclusion, resultantly, the complaint has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the order passed by the court below is against the evidence on record. The learned Sessions Judge did not apply it's judicial mind, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.;